Australia defends the social media ban for those under 16

In Australia, a law restricting social media use by those under 16 has pitted the government against tech companies. In Reddit's legal challenge before the High Court seeking to overturn the regulation, the government drew attention with its remarks.

Government lawyers defending the ban against Reddit argued that the regulation restricts freedom of expression and political communication, stating it is necessary to protect children from harmful online content and habits.

Government Targets Harmful Design Features

Senior Attorney Stephen Lloyd representing the government at the High Court hearing said the regulation is not discriminatory and that he is targeting addictive design features that endanger young people online.

Lloyd drew attention to the association between endless scrolling, likes, comments, personalized content recommendations, and instant notifications and serious risks in children such as sleep problems, depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. He emphasized that the law was prepared to minimize those risks.

Last month, under regulations that entered into force, authorities reported that accounts of over 5 million users identified as under 16 were suspended or deactivated on platforms including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Kick, X, Twitch, and Threads.

Reddit: The Scope of the Law Is Too Broad

Reddit's lawyer Perry Herzfeld argued that the regulation's preparation process was rushed and that the law's scope was made broader than necessary.

Herzfeld claimed that instead of eliminating harmful design features from social media platforms, they were being forced to be entirely banned. He said this approach could lead to serious restrictions on freedom of expression.

Proposal for a Child-Specific Platform from the Government

During the hearing, the government side also raised the possibility that Reddit could offer a child‑specific version stripped of harmful design features. However, it was pointed out that such a measure would not eliminate the requirement to verify users' ages.

Government lawyers also argued that the ban does not discriminate based on political views, does not target information exchange, and that the restriction is narrow in scope, indirect, and measured.

The Australian High Court, after hearing the parties' arguments, postponed the hearing to announce its ruling.